Folks, this is a case history & memorandum of law I’ve prepared to enable everyone to review the manifest injustice inflicted upon me and the law of the matter which clearly and unequivocally shows that Missouri State government is being operated in the manner of a protection racket of legalized plunder & extortion by political usurpers, liars, traitors and thieves in criminal syndicalism )”organized terrorism”) against unwitting Missourians:
FROM THE BEGINNING:
David George Baugh, oldest of six children, born, 1943 in St. Louis, MO.
Graduated from Central High School, St. Louis, MO 1961, Joined USAF served 1961-1965 Honorable Discharge
Married in 1962 to high school sweet heart, had four children now have 12 grand children & two great grand children. Wife died of illness at age 34. I am a widower.
Worked in a factory in St. Louis 1965-1975, started own mfg business 1971-1991. When my children matured and went on their own I closed business to devote full time to evangelism and political activism 1991 and spent three years seriously studying and learning scripture, history and law.
Life Member, NRA
Business had been good in 1989-1990 so I had bought a new 1990 GMC 4WD pick-up. Transferred plates came due in Februrary, 1991, so I took it to be inspected but was told it would not pass because I had had the windows tinted at 30% costing me $70.00 which at the time was lawful, but Missouri legislators had made it illegal. In peaceful protest I then rescinded my plates back to the MODOR with a letter informing them I was no longer going to be registering my truck and that when my Driver’s License expired in July of that year, I would dispose of it and not renew it. I then proceeded to make use of my truck on the public roadways after affixing my own plates which read “SOVEREIGN AMERICAN, LIBERTY OR DEATH.” I travelled over 80,000 miles in five adjoining states over a period of about 18 months and was stopped just once in Oklahoma for allegedly exceeding the speed limit by ten miles an hour. I recorded the incident and the trooper let me go on my way without ticketing me, and even complimenting me on the stand I was taking.
Then, in 1992 or 1993, there was an attempt to have a prison built at Sullivan, MO near where I lived and I joined with those opposing it and was handing out patriotic literature at that public meeting. Those pushing for the prison and local police were not pleased and when I left the meeting, they came after me and arrested me and issued me tickets for failure to register and driving w/o a valid license in Franklin County and let me go with instructions that I could not drive my pick-up. When I did and headed toward home, they chased after me and arrested me again, charged me again (in Crawford County because the City of Sullivan is on the county line). The Officer that charged me threatened to shoot me between the eyes during the process in an unprovoked attack. I was then jailed over night after I refused to use the $500.00 cash I had in my wallet to post the $500.00 bail the cop unlawfully arbitrarily set. The next morning, I was released without posting any bail. I asked where my truck was and was told the location of the tow yard and walked across town to get my truck only to be told I first had to get the police to authorize it. I walked back to the cop shop and they called and told the tow lot to release my truck to me. As I walked back to the tow lot, all five Sullivan Police cars positioned themselves so as to apprehend me should I drive my truck off the tow lot. To avoid this, I paid the towing company to tow my truck beyond the city limits where I got in it and went home.
AND SO THE BATTLE BEGAN!
As aforesaid, I actually had a “valid expired” driver’s license I simply refused to renew as a form of entirely harmless, peaceful protest. I also have driven well over a million and a half miles in my lifetime with only a few minor accidents, none my fault. I was not a motorist who had his license suspended, revoked or cancelled, have no DWI convictions and no criminal record whatsoever and could have obtained said license at any time simply by making the application and passing the test. Having done some study on the licensing/registration/title regulatory revenue schemes, I determined that they are routinely being unconstitutionally, arbitrarily applied and enforced against unwitting Missouri motorists. At the time, I was not alone as some others were peacefully challenging the arbitrary imposition and enforcement of these regulatory revenue schemes or taxation. Not trusting licensed lawyers, I did my best to prepare and mount my own defense, while not waiving my right to competent, effective assistance of counsel which must be done in writing for the record. My contention was that since the public defenders are state employees, there exists a conflict of interest, plus the bar association is a private syndicate that has infiltrated and corrupted the judicial system and unworthy of public trust. In my first trial, which took place on February 8, 1994, I was foolish enough to believe I could just make my case to the jurors and they, like me, would see the injustice and find me innocent. WRONG! I was convicted and sentenced to serve jail time in Franklin County Jail and ended up serving about eight months until released on bench parole on condition I couldn’t drive unless I first got a license. Since I had lost my truck due to this, I had nothing to drive. In the Crawford County case the prosecutor entered a Nolle Prosequi. For about a year or so, I hitch hiked and begged rides from neighbors until an old friend gave me an old 1976 Chevy pick-up to drive.
Soon afterward, the Sullivan cops began stopping me and ticketing me again. Once again in Franklin County, I went to trial but this time did much better. I was still found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 3 months in jail, most of which I served. Meanwhile, I had obtained another car and traveled over 60,000 miles in it even going to Florida and several other states and was never stopped, except in the City of Sullivan, MO, where I had previously lived peacefully, raising my two daughters, and running two businesses providing jobs, goods and services to the community and had many friends. Needless to say, the harassment by the City of Sullivan cops got worse and worse. Soon, I had three more driving w/o license charges in Franklin County. I also got another one in Dent County. In that case, the judge (now deceased) was very complimentary on my litigation work and even invited me into his chambers telling me I was correct in my assertions but that the matter would have to be settled in a higher court, so I filed a petition in prohibition or mandamus in the next higher circuit court. Unfortunately, I was fighting on too many fronts at the same time without funds or support and was unable to follow through and it was dismissed. The charges however, also went away as the prosecutor entered a Nolle Prosequi.
One of the aforesaid charges in Franklin County was the result of an accident in the City of Washington, MO at a very busy intersection where a motorist first indicated he was making a right turn into a parking lot which I was pulling out of but then he changed his mind and speeded up and ramming me broadside while honking his horn and never even putting his foot on the brake! Prosecutor Parks pulled some quisling, pettifogger, shyster shenanigans and used this motorist as a witness against me over my strenuous objections thereby making it appear to the jury my not having a license somehow was the cause of the accident, even though Parks himself refused to prosecute the cop’s ticket charging me with careless driving and knew I was not at fault! Besides, the accident had nothing whatsoever to do with my charges and was therefore irrelevant to the matter before the court! (See my memorandum of law). Additionally, the car I was driving at that time was fully insured and neither one of us was injured seriously (just some bruises).
It took the Franklin County Prosecutor, Robert Parks and his minions (at least nine of them), and six different judges three and a half years to finally force me into a sham trial, in 2003 before a homage jury absent assistance of counsel I demanded yet was denied. By then, I was worn to a frazzle and mentally & emotionally ill equipped for the arduous task before me. I was charged with 3 counts of driving w/o a valid license as a class-D felony crime punishable by up to four years in MO prison on each charge. As you may recall, in 1999, Senate Bill 19 was passed and signed into law making a third offense of violation of Section 302.020, RSMO (driver’s license statute) a class-D felony offense (More on this in the memorandum of law section).
THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION
In the pretrial hearings, Parks had insisted I was a “repeat offender” as defined in the Missouri Criminal Code under Section 558.016, RSMO over my written objections and memorandums of law the judge ruled I was. By doing this, the judge removed the sentencing from the jury and placed it in the hands of Parks and the judge. Needless to say, I was found guilty on all three counts. Then, at the sentencing hearing, about a month later, Parks recommended I had to serve 2 years, 3 years, and four years CONSECUTIVELY FOR A TOTAL OF 9 YEARS! I orally confronted Parks and the judge with my written Allocution on record stating why the sentence could not be carried out (it is not a criminal matter;it is a civil matter not cognizable in a court of criminal jurisdiction). I asked the judge if my not having a driver’s license was a crime such as murder, rape, or robbery or a civil matter? He was dumbfounded and asked me if I was asking him or Parks and I told him I was asking him whereupon he said “I can’t answer that question.” (Again, see the memorandum of law) The judge then pronounced that sentence, but did not execute it and instead placed me on his own bench parole on condition I not drive unless I obtain a driver’s license. I never signed any such agreement. I had also timely and duly filed a motion for judgment of acquittal but the judge refused to make any ruling on it stating he would leave it for the appellate court to rule on when I appealed. I failed to file a timely appeal mainly because I believed it would be an exercise in futility because the private bar association has totally corrupted our system of justice and they are perpetrating and perpetuating a socialist police state of fascist feudalism ruled by absolute despotism where we are not free but regulated, monitored and controlled through such self-funding regulatory revenue schemes of taxation.
THE PENDING CASE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
I had also been stopped and ticketed in Potosi, MO which is Washington County and charged prior to the Franklin County trial thus had to appear to answer and did so in January, 2004. I still had not obtained a license or registration on the old ford van I was using at the time of this appearance (my car had broke down). I put up a legal argument they could not handle in regard to registration of my old car in that as a matter of law, it is impossible to register an automobile with the MODOR that is not also titled with the MODOR. I had sent a letter to the MODOR telling them I did not intend to use the aforesaid car in any activity or capacity falling under their jurisdiction and therefore their title was not applicable asking them what I should do with it. After about a month, they wrote back telling me to just send them the original title and they would remove it from their records which is what I did. Thus, there was no record of the car and no legal basis to charge me with failure to register my car, much less, proof of insurance, no inspection sticker etc.. Also, my legal brief caught the judge off guard and he had to take it under advisement and continue the matter. This pissed off the cops, so they laid in wait for me and when I attempted to go home, they “swat teamed” me, impounded my van and charged me again, this time with a class-D felony and notified Franklin County. After a month in the dung hole Washington County Jail in Potosi, I was taken back to Franklin County, and the shyster judge executed five years of the nine year sentence and off to prison I went in March, 2004.
MY PRISON EXPERIENCE
I was transported from Franklin County Jail to the Fulton Reception & Diagnostic Center. The indoctrination is not something any human being should have to endure, especially someone whose only “crime” was driving w/o a license and has no criminal record. Inmates are lined up and commanded to strip naked and submit to visual body cavity search, then marched through a spray of toxic chemicals and then through a shower of semi warm water, and then given some old prison clothes and rubber & canvas slippers to wear, all of this while being yelled at and otherwise treated harshly. Then inmates are sent to housing units. The toxic chemicals sprayed upon me caused me to break out in a terrible rash to which I complained and they sent me to see a nurse who prescribed some kind of ointment which seemed to help. During the “reception & diagnostics” inmates go through a series of evaluations, mental, emotional and physical. Apparently, this is used as a criteria for which prison they will be sent to. In my case, the gal who questioned me about my alleged “crimes” after asking me why I was there, and I told her “driving w/o a license,” she said, “oh you mean you had a DWI and were revoked” and I told her No, I just didn’t renew my “valid expired” license. She seemed perplexed but nevertheless, went through the process like a robotic humanoid irregardless of the facts and law.
I ended up going to the Moberly prison where I was again processed and assigned duties to clean the dormatory. After the indoctrination, inmates are issued prison clothing & shoes and assigned to the housing units. After a few months I managed to get a job working in the prison library and eventually as a law clerk, which I enjoyed putting my knowledge and experience to use helping other inmates as well as further educating myself. I did two radio interviews out of Moberley prison on the Derry Brownfield Show which were well received, however, it resulted in my being transferred to the maximum security prison at Licking, MO as one guard told me “now you are gone and we don’t have to listen to you on the radio anymore.” I was housed in “7 House” which was outside the prison and for those soon to be released. My job was to help process the waste from the chow hall into a composting kiln which we did daily and then spread the compost out on the field with a tractor and manure spreader which work I enjoyed being out doors. However, this required being strip searched in and out. There, I filed a Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus in the local Circuit Court of Texas County, MO. The matter was set for a hearing. Meanwhile, after about 30 days, inmates of 7 house where I was are compelled under threat of punishment to go to work for MODOT for .50 cents an hour and if they refuse, they get tossed in the hole and sent back to prison and/or are denied any of the “privileges” enjoyed by the general 7 house population. They are ordered to sign an agreement to go to work for MODOT for .50 cents an hour cleaning up along the roadways. According to the law and statutory limitations this is inducement to slavery and in breach of statutory law. While the DOC can compel inmates to work within the prison, it cannot lawfully force inmates against their will to work outside the prison for any other agency or entity. Well, knowing the law, I refused and this is what happened to me. After languishing in the hole in a maximum security prison for a month or so, I was suddenly taken and transferred to the Pacific prison, THE DAY BEFORE MY SCHEDULED HEARING ON MY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS!
At the Pacific prison, I was placed in a housing unit at first to share a cell with a young black guy who, like me, did not like the placement so we successfully made other arrangements and I shared a cell with a young white fellow who I got along with fine. At Pacific, I was again assigned to clean up the dorm but I immediately applied for a job as a law clerk, and, though being approved, even with recommendations from Moberly was denied. In February, 2005 at Pacific prison, I was told I was going to be released on probation with these conditions: No driving, mandatory substance abuse classes, no drinking alcohol, and electronic surveillance. When I was called out to agree to these outrageous conditions, I vehemently refused to accept them and informed my captors that I was unlawfully incarcerated and they had no jurisdiction over me, and I would never agree to such conditions and if I was to be released it was none of the state’s business where I went or what I did. They begged me to comply, even contacting my daughter and having me call her, but I refused to comply. Shortly thereafter, I was placed in the hole and told I was to be transferred to another prison because one of the guards purportedly knew me. There I remained for several months in horrible inhumane conditions with no heat and no hot water, until I wrote a letter to the Department of Corrections telling them what was going on and demanding action. A week later, we had both heat and hot water.
FORCED DNA TESTING
During my stay in the hole at Pacific, all inmates irregardless of their “crimes” were forced to submit to DNA testing which was done by taking a saliva sample. If an inmate did not submit, it was forcefully taken. In my case, I vehemently objected only to be threatened with physical harm. It got to a point where the goons were all dressed up in their gear to force me to submit, but the female who was to take the DNA sample listened to me and I told her there is no need for violence if they wanted my saliva DNA, I would submit but only under threat of being harmed if I refused it but only if on a written document. She agreed and that is what happened. Shortly afterward, I was transferred back to Moberly prison. Back at Moberly, I was assigned to work in the chow hall, but I immediately applied to once again work as a law clerk. While at Pacific, I noticed I had pain in my feet and legs and had gone to the clinic but they found nothing to be concerned about. When back at Moberly, I began to really be weak and sick and eventually ended up being put in the infirmary and diagnosed with pneumonia plus it was discovered I had developed atrial fibrillation (a heart condition). They immediately started sticking me with coumadin (blood thinner) in my stomach. I was in the infirmary for about six weeks and they had overdosed me on the blood thinners making me piss blood. The doctor sent me to the hospital in Columbia for tests and had intended to follow through and heal my condition, but they fired him before he could do so. The doctor in Columbia said my condition was caused by severe mental & emotional stress, which could only have been caused by my senseless imprisonment. Meanwhile, I successfully got my job back as a prison law clerk when I was released from the infirmary.
Because I had refused the probation offered at Pacific, I was set back two years before I could be eligible for parole or probation. In 2007, I was informed I was to meet with the parole board. Previously, I had sent them documents by certified mail showing my imprisonment was unlawful but there was no response. When I appeared before the board, I was asked if I was willing to submit to the aforesaid conditions by an arrogant smart mouth disrespectful bitch. I asked them (her) if they had received and reviewed the documents I had sent them. The bitch did all the talking and refused to answer and repeated her question to me, and I again asked them my question. After a third such exchange I was told the meeting was over and to leave. About the same time, all inmates were noticed we all had to submit to a DNA test and it was mandatory. When I was called in, I explained it had already been done, but the guard said that test was for some reason, not acceptable and therefore I had to take another one. I, of course, objected and was cast into the hole. After a few days, one of the prison staff who had some respect for me came and said he would draft up a statement that I had only submitted under threat of being harmed which he did and the test was taken. Interestingly, one of the officers suggested that we need to trace the money spent for the testing kits. At least one honest prison guard! Well, this resulted in my losing my law clerk job and I was assigned to clean the toilets in the housing unit. I filed a grievance (one of many I had filed) and managed to get my law clerk job back, but losing my $30.00 a month salary and having to start over again at the starting rate. Next, I was moved into another housing unit purportedly housing those inmates getting close to release. However, this required mandatory participation in a “re-entry program” purportedly sanctioned by the federal government to help stop recidivism. Of course, I objected but was informed if I refused to participate, I would be cast in the hole and maybe have to be imprisoned longer. I did some research on just how much influence the federal government had in this program. I learned that the federal government allocates a certain amount of federal funding to the states each year for such purposes, but that such funding had to be used exclusively for such rehabilitative purposes and if it was not, it had to be refunded. In my case (as in many others) there was no need for all this, yet it was senselessly forced upon us under threat of punishment for not participating. I would add to this that most of it was nonsensical and a total waste of time for most of the inmates, although it may have helped a few of them. In other words, it was a sham orchestrated to continue receiving federal funding to help keep expanding the Missouri Department of Corrections. Furthermore, the MODOC is practicing slave labor in direct competition with the private sector!
RELEASE AT LAST!
After going through the farcical re-entry program, I was brought before a female prison bureaucrat who presented me with the aforesaid terms and conditions of my release on parole. I politely informed her that I would never agree to any such parole and that they had no lawful jurisdiction over me. Nevertheless, she processed it. Meanwhile, I was still dealing with the subsequent charge in Washington County. On three occasions, the MO DOC had unlawfully transported me to the hell hole prison at Bonne Terre to appear in the Washington County Circuit Court when the law forbids the DOC from transporting prisoners because it is the obligation of the county to do it. Now I will describe how this transportation is done which is torture!: An inmate is called out, stripped naked, clothed in an orange jump suit and then shackled and chained, ankles, waist and arms and a hard plastic device is fastened to your wrists with steel handcuffs and connected to the chain around your waist which prevents you from any movement other than to hunch over and hobble where you are told to go. The inmate is then strip searched again for the return trip. If this is not inhumane treatment and torture, I don’t know what is, especially for prisoners such as myself. Even though I flatly refused to sign the parole agreement, in June, 2007 I was released into the custody of the Washington County Sheriff, and was picked up at Moberly and transported to the Washington County Jail on $10,000 cash only bond by an obnoxious bitch deputy who not only treated me with disrespect but refused to allow me to have all of my possessions, including essential legal documents and records in the transport forcing me to have my sister go and get them. Fortunately I had previously prepared a petition for writ of habeas corpus which I filed immediately. After one judge recusing himself, another judge was appointed who granted my writ on promise to appear. Meanwhile, while in that disgusting jail, I filed a petition in mandamus to force the associate circuit judge to see to it that the jail was being operated in a humane manner which it was not and Missouri law requires him to do and I got all my fellow inmates to sign it, and within a week we started seeing improvements such as better food, clothing, linens, etc.. This of course was met with retaliation but made life much better. Soon after, in July, 2007 I was released to report to the half way house located down off Broadway in St. Louis which I did. There they tried to force me to submit to the terms of the parole agreement I refused to sign. Since I am a veteran, I was able to go to the VA hospital and get them to show I had no need of their substance abuse programs. After about three months, I was able to go stay with my sister in South St. Louis County but required to report to the parole officer near there. I politely informed this woman I had not signed the parole agreement and that the only reason I was complying was to show my good faith. After a few months she said I needed to start paying the parole fee of $30.00 a month and I told her I would not whereupon she said if I refused I would be sent back to prison. However, since I did not sign the parole agreement, I could not be compelled to pay it (See my memorandum of law). That pissed them off! She also wanted me to submit to a piss test which I refused (Why should I be subjected to a piss test when I’ve never been charged or convicted of any drug use or alcohol abuse?). While in prison, I was routinely subjected to such piss tests even though I have never ever used any kind of drugs whatsoever! Who benefits? Follow the money! My sister helped me get a car and I went ahead and got a driver’s license using my sister’s car thereby proving I could have done so at any time, and got my car inspected, registered and insured. I then made an appearance in Washington County Circuit Court on the charge pending against me for driving w/o a license. The judge (who knew me and respected me) said he had heard I had obtained a driver’s license and asked me to see it. I presented it to him and the prosecutor and the case went away and I never heard from them again. What does this prove? It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with public safety and security and is nothing more than a statutory regulatory revenue scheme of taxation and a protection racket of legalized plunder and extortion being perpetrated upon unwitting Missouri motorists to monitor, regulate, and control all of us and exploit us under color of law, under color of authority using color of process in cash register kangaroo courts!
MY TEXAS ADVENTURE
I then had an opportunity to go to work as an assistant to a patriotic friend in Texas doing evangelism and legal writing and research for him in his ministry which was helping people falsely charged and imprisoned litigate for their freedom as well as educate people. My friend provided me room & board plus enough cash to provide for my basic needs. Prior to leaving Missouri I had first duly noticed the parole officer and her supervisors of my intentions in writing and they did not offer any refusal. I travelled back to Missouri each month to keep the monthly appointment and visit family. My sister, with whom I maintained Missouri residence, bought a house near Salem, MO so a different PO was appointed to me. I met him once and explained my situation and how utterly ridiculous it was for me to be subject to any such monitoring (and even contrary to their stated rules) and he said he would see about eliminating my requirement to report in each month. How the heck can one be on parole for not having a license when he has a license and did not sign the parole agreement? Legal absurdity! Anyway, from September, 2007 to April 2008, I had been driving back and forth, but in March or April, 2008, I was standing on my friend’s private property at about 11:00 PM talking with a guest of my friend when a City of Jacksonville, TX cop pulled up and the fellow I was talking to walked away which made the cop suspicious. The cop then asked me to identify myself so I asked him what his probable cause was for asking me whereupon he said by law I had to comply and if I didn’t he would arrest me. I was arrested and jailed overnight after the cop acquired my driver’s license ID from my wallet over my objection. I was released the next morning on promise to appear and answer on the charge of “failure to identify” the next month. Unbeknownst to me, the fellow I was talking to had an outstanding federal warrant on a purported gun charge (which I learned later was nonsense). I drafted up and filed a Title 42, Section 1983 civil suit against the cop & city and filed it in Federal Court. The local cops and the local media had a heyday claiming they had captured a “dangerous criminal” referring to the fellow I had been talking to and his and my mug shot was on local TV and front page news. I also filed my motion to dismiss the charges against me of “failure to ID” and made my appearance in court along with my witnesses and friends. The judge informed me the case had been continued for two or three months. I strenuously objected stating I wanted to argue my motion but was denied to do so. The local cops were present and very intimidating. Later that day, I received a call on my cell phone from one of the cops telling me they wanted me to come in to the police station and they would drop the charge. Knowing they could not do this since it had been filed in the court and only the court could do that, I drafted up a written letter and took it the post office prior to 4:00PM and mailed it to them suggesting a hearing be set for that purpose. Later that day, the police came and broke into the building where I stayed and worked with my friend and arrested me at gunpoint claiming I was a “parole absconder” and jailed me in the Cherokee County, TX Jail. I fought extradition and proved it was unlawful to no avail before an obnoxious, admittedly biased and prejudiced judge, so I appealed his ruling and in retaliation, he imposed a $100,000.00 cash only bail. Meanwhile, I filed another Title 42, Section 1983 civil suit against them with the help of my Texas friends. After spending nearly a year in jail, on February 15, 2009, I was discharged because the MO DOC & parole officer said I had “successfully completed parole” on that date. I had filed numerous complaints to the MODOC and it worked! I’m sure that if I had been extradited, and brought into Missouri court, the judge would have severely admonished my false accusers because the only stipulation of the trial court judge was that I obtain a valid license before driving which I had done. There never was a valid (signed) warrant for my arrest and the MO governor (Matt Blunt) and secretary of state (Robin Carnahan) merely rubber stamped the bogus extradition paperwork sent to Texas.
MORE HARASSMENT IN TEXAS
My unconditional discharge caught my false accusers by surprise as they figured I would be extradited. When falsely arrested, absent requisite warrant, and imprisoned, the bastards also had my car towed off of my friend’s private property, also absent requisite warrant. Immediately after being jailed, I filed a sworn complaint to the sheriff and sent notice to the towing company via certified mail that my car had been stolen/unlawfully taken. As soon as the evil miscreants learned I had been discharged, I was summoned to appear on the aforesaid “failure to ID charge.” When I appeared, with the help of friends, because the City of Jacksonville had also conducted two more swat team assaults against my friend and unnecessarily broke into the building where he worked and stayed and confiscated most all of his belongings and falsely charged him with several bogus charges (8) which were all eventually found to be false I then had no place to stay, and no transportation and no income. I succeeded in getting the matter continued on demand for assistance of counsel, however, the local cops were there in force and arrested me again on the bogus charge of “tampering with a legal document” because I had filed a criminal complaint in the court against the cops. I immediately filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and petition for writ of mandamus or in the alternative prohibition and motion to dismiss for failure to state a crime. After another thirty days in jail, the grand jury entered a NO BILL and I was discharged again, but still had to contend with the bogus failure to ID charge. Needless to say, I was not at my best, but put up a good fight in a corrupted court before a corrupted judge and was found guilty, but it is not a jailable offense and so once again I was free yet homeless and broke. Once again friends came to my aid and I went to work to help my friend who was still incarcerated. We managed to get him out on bond and get all but one of his charges dismissed. After a mistrial, and a hung jury in another trial, and a third trial on the same bogus charge (“tampering with a government record”) my friend was convicted and ended up spending a year in prison, however, he won his appeal and was totally innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever but his ministry was destroyed.
I managed to find some work and a place to stay through friends and filed a claim to recover my car and contents. I had also filed complaints with appropriate Texas agencies and they informed me that by Texas law, my car was unlawfully seized and impounded and I was entitled to compensation. Of course, I had to file my claim in Cherokee County Court, and the same crooked judge, in the face of the facts and law, still ruled against me so I timely appealed. But, this crooked judge did not sign the judgment and the appellate court dismissed my case because of that. Then the judge signed the judgment the same day the appellate court dismissed my appeal. At that time, I had taken a bad fall and fractured my hip and had surgery and then six months later, suffered another crippling injury to my knee which prevented me from following up. Being then unable to work, and over 65, I applied for and was granted my VA pension and as soon as I was able, I returned to Missouri and stayed with my sister.
DISASTER IN MISSOURI
I returned to MO in September, 2011 and set about finding a place of my own. In December, 2011, due to a faulty flue, my sister’s house burned along with all of my belongings rendering me homeless once again but I had my car and my VA pension. With some immediate help from the Salvation Army, local church group, and subsequent help from friends, I had clothing, a warm place to stay and food to eat. In July, 2012, I successfully purchased my humble home and have gradually been pulling my life back together and getting back into the eternal vigilance essential to our liberty & freedom.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING THE LICENSE ISSUE
Missouri law provides that the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue (MODOR) has the authority to collect the “motor vehicle driver’s license [excise] tax,” authorized in Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, and Section 136.030, RSMo. That’s right, my fellow Missourians, it is just another tax and has little or nothing to do with so-called “public safety,” as my severe and extreme persecution proves for all to see.
The Missouri Legislature has, by statute, Section 302.181, RSMo, under TITLE XIX, MOTOR VEHICLES, the Missouri Motor Vehicle Code, authorized the Director of the MODOR to produce, or have produced a “driver’s license” receipt for the payment of said tax to be used as proof of its payment on demand by police.
The Missouri Legislature lacked power to subvert the State and U.S. Constitutions by arbitrarily making a third time of civil offense of its purely civil/penal regulatory revenue licensure scheme of excise taxation of Missouri motorists, “operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license,” in alleged violation of Section 302.020, RSMo a criminal felony crime cognizable in a court of criminal jurisdiction with enhanced criminal penalty punishable with criminal imprisonment on criminal conviction, absent essential criminal conduct expressly set forth in the law, as was impermissibly done in Missouri by Senate Bill 19 in 1999, resulting in my unlawful criminal conviction and my being unlawfully criminally sentenced with enhanced criminal penalty of criminal imprisonment for 9 years (three counts, 2 years, 3 years, and four years, consecutively) in June, 2003, Case No. 20R030001269T, STATE OF MISSOURI v. David George Baugh, in Franklin County Circuit Court, Union, Missouri, 63084.
In my case, I actually had a “valid expired” chauffeur’s license I had simply not renewed or replaced with another class of driver’s license, and could have had a driver’s license for the asking, and I was not engaged in any particular privileged occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activities on the public roads for profit or gain, and was merely peacefully, claiming and exercising my right of locomotion in responsible and reasonable enjoyment of the gains of my own industry, my private automobile as a place travel device, respecting everyone else’s right to do the same thing.
When released from prison on June 15, 2007, I flatly refused to sign the parole contract agreements offered, challenging my imprisonment as false imprisonment and being patently unconstitutional, yet I was released anyway, thus I deny being subject to any so-called “parole supervision” as expressly set forth in Missouri law and the implementing, promulgated rules of the Missouri Department of Corrections and its Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, particularly because the only charge against me was driving without a valid driver’s license, when I actually had a “valid expired” chauffeur’s license I had simply not renewed, and my procurement of a driver’s license in August, 2007 rendered it legally impossible for me to again “violate” the law, totally eliminating the requirement for any such “parole supervision,” to wit:
Pursuant to the booklet issued to me and each inmate released from Missouri prison on probation, parole, and conditional release, entitled, “RULES and REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION, PAROLE, AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE,” MBPP-258 (11-2004), on page two, “The Board has the authority to determine conditions of parole under Sections 217.690(3) RSMo: The Board shall adopt rules not inconsistent with law, in accordance with Section 217.040, with respect to the eligibility of inmates for parole, the conduct of parole hearings or conditions to be imposed upon parole offenders….”; and “Conditional release means the conditional discharge of an offender by the Board of Probation and Parole subject to conditions of release that the Board deems reasonable to assist the offender to lead a law-abiding life, and subject to the supervision under the state Board of Probation and Parole. The Board of Probation and Parole is entrusted with this authority under Section 558.011, RSMo.”; and on page three, “Section 559.021(1) RSMo reads: The conditions of probation shall be such as the Court in its discretion deems reasonably necessary to ensure that the defendant will not again violate the law…”. (The trial court’s only requirement was that before I drive, I get a license).
TITLE 14, CSR, DIVISION 80, CHAPTERS 1 – 5, provides implementing, promulgating rules that govern the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (MBPP) in its statutory duties. A thorough search through all these chapters reveals that the MBPP has not been delegated any authority whatsoever to place a motorist convicted of alleged violation of any provision of Chapter 302, RSMo, on probation, parole, or conditional release, and that the only statutes applicable under TITLE 14, CSR, DIVISION 80, CHAPTERS 1 – 5, are those expressly enumerated therein (criminal statutes applicable only under the criminal code), excluding all others.
The controlling enhanced penalty provision of Missouri law governing the imposition and execution of all criminal sentences under Section 558.011, RSMo is Section 558.016, RSMo which is strictly limited to only violations of those particular criminal statutes expressly enumerated and listed under Section 558.016, RSMo,, which explicitly do not include any of the civil statutes found in the Motor Vehicle Code, Title XIX, RSMo., particularly, Chapter 302, RSMo., and Section 302.020, RSMo, the statute I was impermissibly criminally convicted of violating, allegedly driving without a valid driver’s license.
The legal terms, “prior offender, persistent offender, persistent misdemeanor offender, and dangerous offender,” are expressly defined with specific legal meanings under Section 558.016, RSMo as being applicable only against those persons fitting the said express definitions and legal meanings therein, and apply only against those actually having violated those particular chapters of criminal statutes expressly enumerated under Section 558.016, RSMo, which clearly legally cannot, did not, and does not include totally harmless violations of Section 302.020, RSMo or myself in this case, however, the grossly incompetent, or totally corrupt judge in my case, namely, Robert Schollmeyer, erroneously, impermissibly found me to be a “prior offender” thereby removing the sentencing from the homage jury, even though said legal term was not applicable against me, and is not even included anywhere in Chapter 302, RSMo.
IS THE “MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVER’S LICENSE [EXCISE] TAX” BEING UNLAWFULLY, ARBITRARILY IMPOSED AGAINST UNWITTING MISSOURI MOTORISTS BY MISAPPLICATION OF LAW?
As aforesaid, the Missouri Legislature has expressly imposed an excise tax styled as the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax,” pursuant to Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, and expressly authorized the Director of the MODOR to collect said excise tax pursuant to Section 136.030, RSMo through administration and enforcement of Chapter 302, RSMo.
The revenue said Director collects from this taxation and related motor vehicle taxes and fees, is deposited in the “State Highways and Transportation Fund” pursuant to Section 226.200, RSMo rendering said tax imposed an excise (indirect) tax imposed under the legislative power to tax and regulate certain privileged, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activities.
The proof of payment of this excise tax is shown by possession of a “driver’s license,” receipt, or an “operator’s license” receipt as defined in Section 302.181, RSMo, which authorizes the Director of the MODOR to prescribe the form thereof, and to issue to applicants there under.
Section 302.020, RSMo in pertinent part provides in subsection 1 that:
“Unless otherwise provided for by law, it shall be unlawful for any person…to: (1) Operate any vehicle upon any highway in this state unless the person has a valid license.”
Section 302.020, RSMo, in pertinent part further provides in subsection 3 that:
“Any person convicted a third or subsequent time of violating subdivision (1)…of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class D felony.”
The word “person,” as other words, have more than one meaning, and a thorough study of the statutory construction of this statute, as well as many others, reveals deliberate deception on the part of the quisling, pettifogger, shyster Bar Association lawyers who cunningly draft up these regulatory revenue schemes so as to confuse and deceive the citizenry upon whom such filthy parasites prey.
The record of Case No. 20R030001269T, STATE OF MISSOURI v. David George Baugh, in Franklin County, Missouri Circuit Court, in which I was convicted, shows that I was criminally charged, criminally prosecuted, criminally convicted, criminally sentenced, and criminally imprisoned under the aforesaid provisions of the criminal code for alleged violations of a purely civil regulatory revenue scheme of taxation in a county district court functioning under criminal jurisdiction.
The latter pertinent part of Section 302.020, RSMo making a third or subsequent time of conviction a class-D felony crime, as aforesaid, was added in Senate Bill 19 in 1999; I hereby and herein allege and clearly and unequivocally show the unreasonably enforced and severe criminal penalty infliction against me prove that this legislation was constitutionally impermissible legislative discretion which has authorized and encouraged more aggressive and predatory, arbitrary, abusive, vindictive, malicious, discriminatory, and selective enforcement against Missouri motorists, particularly myself because I was a peaceful political activist openly and notoriously exposing the misapplication of the Missouri regulatory revenue schemes of taxation.
A thorough study of the minutes of the Missouri General Assembly’s deliberations, and the original bill in 1999, reveals that the original bill was originally constructed so it would be applicable only against habitually impaired or incompetent motorists who had actually caused damages or injury to others, or had actually posed a serious threat or danger to other motorists, but in the last week, just before the General Assembly adjourned, someone (most likely one of the aforesaid quisling, pettifogger, shyster Bar Association lawyer parasites) removed that portion of the bill, rendering it impermissibly vague and ambiguous, but it was passed into law and approved by the Governor anyway, even though it was not read before the General Assembly the requisite three times, which resulted in its being used in a predatory and capricious manner against me by an unscrupulous quisling, pettifogger, shyster county prosecutor, namely, Robert Parks, who was aided, abetted, and encouraged by then Missouri Attorney General, Jeremiah Nixon, who is now the Missouri Governor, in selectively targeting me and other motorists who were daring to openly and notoriously, publicly expose the scam and fraud, by exercising our right of locomotion/travel on the public highways owned by we, the people. It is abundantly clear that I was selectively targeted, convicted, and punished so severely to instill fear in anyone else who would dare to claim and exercise said rights. Missouri State Government has evolved into a socialist police state of fascist feudalism ruled by absolute despotism; so long as you pay for the “protection,” you will not be molested by the revenue collectors, who are nothing more than plundering, predatory government armed thugs a.k.a. “road Nazis” roaming around and lurking on the public highways so as to try and justify their filthy parasitic existence.
Just like any such protection racket, those running it cannot afford to have some of those they rob, rape, pillage, plunder and extort money from under threat of being assaulted, damaged and injured, develop a backbone and some courage and reveal the scam and fraud to others and encourage others to resist the theft, tyranny and oppression, otherwise the traitors, usurpers, liars, and thieves could not maintain their parasitic job security and overly intrusive monitoring and control over the woefully ignorant “sheeple” and continue in their criminal extortion, which certain insolent, constitutionally disobedient, treasonous public servant usurpers in Missouri State government have created in their regulatory revenue schemes of taxation, or better described as a protection racket of legalized plunder and extortion under color of law, using the power of the police gun against unwitting Missouri motorists.
If a motorist pays for the protection, he need not worry about being assaulted, damaged and injured by the “road nazi” enforcement officers who unwittingly breach their oaths of office by depriving the motorist of his/her rights, when instead, the public servant is supposed to be protecting the motorist’s rights. The plundering parasites have made it very easy to just pay the extortion fee, and extremely difficult, if not impossible to prevail in their cash register, kangaroo courts. It takes so much time and effort to fight the legalized plunder in traffic court, most folks just pay the fine. All the filthy parasites are interested in is the money, and perpetuation of their protection racket, and because folks fail and refuse to assert our rights, liberties and freedoms, and instead give in, the situation gets worse and worse.
Of course, when these so-called “law-enforcement” officer parasites become numerous, and the bureaucracy expands with other countless useless, nonproductive, paper shuffling government parasites, they must enact more regulatory revenue schemes and write more and more tickets in order to try and justify their filthy, parasitic existence, which is otherwise known as their “job security,” thus we are plagued with more and more speed traps, so-called “safety check points,” and the phony “war on drugs,” and phony “war on terrorism,” tactics which enslaves us even more, all under the phony guise of “public safety & security.”
Most all of the so-called “law-enforcement” officers and other agents and public employees are totally mentally conditioned to believe they are absolutely necessary in order to maintain peace, order, safety, and security, but this is a fallacious presupposition not grounded in fact or law, because our history proves we get along fine without so much needless bureaucracy and so-called “law-enforcement,” and such parasitic paper shufflers and predatory “law-enforcement” officers are required only in fascist or tyrannical countries with limited individual liberty and freedom; in America, the people are individually and collectively sovereign, government is our servant and cannot ever be our master, and we have only peace officers, not law-enforcement officers, but most such public servants are woefully ignorant parasites and have yet to be properly educated to this historical and political fact of life, and compelled to go out and seek honest work.
Reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 302.020, RSMo show it to be entirely vague, ambiguous and over broad, far exceeding said statute’s plainly limited legislative sweep, thereby depriving me and other Missouri motorists of our antecedent, unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms, and causing overly intrusive, abusive infringement and encroachment against the sovereign people who comprise the State of Missouri and hold the inherent political power over all internal state government “…and police thereof” as set forth in Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3, Missouri Constitution, rendering the said statutory provision and its enforcement against me and my fellow Missourians constitutionally impermissible and prohibited.
Section 302.020.1(1)(3), RSMo, as it is written, is facially fatally defective for failure to distinguish different classifications of motorists, licensees, offenses, and appropriate, reasonable, constitutionally permissible civil penalties for its alleged violation, in particular in my case, to distinguish between socially responsible, competent unlicensed motorists, and motorists whose license was valid and merely expired (as mine was) and those who had their license suspended, revoked, or cancelled, or motorists who were habitually careless and reckless, incompetent, or drugged or drunken drivers who actually committed criminal acts in use of an automobile cognizable in a court of criminal jurisdiction.
The statutory rendering of an alleged violation of Section 302.020, RSMo consisting of completely harmless violation of the civil regulatory revenue scheme of taxation (such as failing to renew a “valid expired” driver’s license/pay the excise tax as in my case) as a class-D felony crime applicable under the common-law based Missouri criminal code is not only unreasonable, but impracticable and a palpably arbitrary classification, as it is not embraced within Title XIX, Motor Vehicle Code, and Title XXXV, Civil Procedure and Limitations, which set forth only civil/penal regulatory action there under, that TITLE XXXVIII,CRIMES & PUNISHMENT, of the Missouri Criminal Code, in its historical notes under Section 556.021, V.A.M.S. thereof says are merely harmless “public welfare offenses” of “strict liability” which are to be “specifically, explicitly distinguished” from “true crimes in the sense of involving moral condemnation implicit in the concept of crime.”
Section 517.011.1(3), RSMo of TITLE XXXV, CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS, expressly provides that any alleged violation of a provision of Chapter 302, RSMo is a purely civil matter explicitly distinguished from the criminal code and such “true crimes,” and Section 517.021, RSMo thereof provides that the rules of civil procedure are to apply to such cases, except as otherwise provided by law, but where is such law? It does not exist, so the predatory public servant usurpers, liars, traitors, and thieves apply the criminal code against woefully ignorant, unwitting Missouri motorists and any motorist such as myself who figures out their scam and fraud is selectively targeted and either falsely imprisoned or murdered by the government gangsters.
Indeed, Sections 542.020, 542.030, and 542.040, V.A.M.S. of TITLE XXXVII, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, and Article I, Sections 10, 15, and 15(a), Missouri Constitution provide the essential prerequisites for any criminal prosecution, primarily that in order for a true crime to have been committed, there must actually be a victim or damaged party, and the corporate fiction creature state cannot possibly be a victim or damaged party, and which, as the record of the aforesaid criminal case against me shows, was not adhered to by the prosecutor, judge and charging officers who covertly mixed the purely civil/penal, quasi-criminal, regulatory revenue scheme of taxation with purely criminal statutory procedures, sentencing and punishment, while conveniently adapting the rules of court to suit their own biased, prejudiced, subjective agenda.
It is clear in this case against me, that the Missouri Legislature, by and through such blatant abuse of prosecutorial discretion, and malicious, selective prosecution and judicial malfeasance, by inflicting such arbitrary and reckless imposition of such severe and extreme criminal punishment against me (and perhaps others), has impermissibly rendered its regulatory revenue scheme of taxation so punitive either in purpose or effect that its only legitimate, constitutionally permissible legislative intention and purpose is negated by severely punishing me, a motorist who has never posed any threat or danger to society, and has an excellent driving record, and had merely failed to renew my valid expired driver’s license which I could have had for the asking. (See Mayers v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 806 F.2d, 995; U.S. v. Gordon, 634 F.Supp. 409).
Clearly, by the admission of Missouri case law, the only constitutionally permissible legislative intent and purpose of the regulatory revenue licensure scheme of taxation is regulatory and remedial, and cannot be arbitrarily and subjectively punitive, and it was intended only as a deterrent for public protection against possible injury at the hands of certain incompetents or impaired individuals, and to create no liability where a private motorist is in fact competent but unlicensed, and, more specifically, not engaged in any statutorily specific privileged, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activity requiring a license (payment of the aforesaid tax) (See Siess v. Layton, (Supp.1967), 417 S.W.2d 6, cited in RSMo).
The driver’s license issued by the MODOR merely evidences the payment of the aforesaid excise tax defined as:
“…every form of taxation which is not a burden laid directly upon persons or property, and includes every form of charge imposed by public authority for purpose of raising revenue upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the engaging in an occupation,” Note 13, excise tax, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S., p. 427.
By legal definition (Black’s Law Dictionary), a “privilege tax” is akin to an “occupation tax” and a “business tax” and such taxation is not generally applicable against all Missouri motorists arbitrarily; such motorists must be members of the specific class of “persons” engaged in some specific, statutorily defined, privileged, occupational, business, commercial, or public driving activity, in use of a “vehicle” identified as having the “nature and characteristics” rendering said vehicle and its driver/operator subject to such taxation and associated regulatory control under the police power which the legislature deems is essential for the public health, safety, morals, and welfare.
An excise tax, being an indirect tax, cannot lawfully be arbitrarily, directly applied against the public because such direct taxation without apportionment is strictly prohibited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, U.S. Constitution.
According to prevailing Missouri law:
“A license tax for using vehicles on city streets was not a tax on personal property, but was a license tax on a privilege connected with property, although imposed for revenue” See Kansas City v. Richardson, (1901) 90 Mo.App.450, Article 10, Section 4(a), Note 18, p. 428, Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,
“Const. 1875, Art. 10, Section 4 was not applicable to property and rights the money value of which was not ascertainable, such as the use of the public highways by vehicles,” See City of St. Louis v. Green, (1879) 7 Mo.App. reversed on other grounds, 70 Mo. 562, Article 10, Section 4(a), Note 18, p. 428, Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,
Missouri law provides that the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” is not a property tax, but is an excise tax imposed for the privilege of conducting business for profit or gain on the public highways in Missouri, See General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Bates, (1952) 249 S.W.2d 458, 363 Mo. 146, and American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis (1917) 192 S.W. 402, 270 Mo., Note 14, Occupation taxes in General, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, Taxation, p. 427, V.A.M.S.; and,
Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution provides that liability to pay the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” is determined by the “nature and characteristics” of the property (automobile) being used, and not on the nature, residence, or business of the owner or amount owned. See Note 13, Excise Tax, p. 427 and p. 422 under classification of taxable property-taxes on franchises, incomes, excises, and licenses, Article 10, Section 4(a), Missouri Constitution, V.A.M.S.; and,
The controlling U.S. Supreme Court cases provide that:
“Though a citizen may have under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to transport his property upon them by motor vehicles, yet, he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion without violating the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 254 U.S. Loc.Cit.1, 44 S.Ct. 257, 68 L.Ed. 596. There is a constant recognition of the principle that under this power the state ‘has a broad discretion in the exercise of its power of regulation.’ Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U.S. 553, Loc.Cit. 560, 51 S.Ct. 582, 587, 75 L.Ed. 1264. Upon such classification no person can interpose an objection, save only in those cases where the classification or discrimination is entirely arbitrary, and the burden is on the assailant to show that the classification is essentially arbitrary.” Park Transp. Co. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, et.al., 60 S.W.2d, 388-392.
Further, “it is pointed out by Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed. P. 283, that a license for regulation is issued under the police power; but the exaction of the license fee with a view to revenue would be an exercise of the taxing power. The police power cannot be exercised for the purpose of exacting revenue. If the purpose of a license is regulation only, it is beyond the authority of the legislature…to impose it for the purpose of revenue. However, a license may be imposed strictly as a revenue measure in the exercise of the taxing power. 25 Cye. 609; 12 C.J. 906; Kansas City v. Grush, 151 Mo. 134, 52 S.W. 286; City of St. Charles v. Eisner, 155 Mo. 680, 56 S.W. 291; State ex.rel. McClung v. Becker, 288 Mo. Loc.Cit. 614, 233 S.W. 54. An occupation tax may at the same time be both a police regulation and a revenue measure.” Id. Viquesney v. Kansas City et.al., 266 S.W. 700-704.
Because the “motor vehicle driver’s license tax” being imposed, by law, must be, and is based on the extent to which the privileged driving activity is conferred or exercised by a motorist irrespective of his assets, it is an excise tax, and, apparently is being imposed for both police regulation and as a revenue measure, rendering it an occupation tax for the privilege of engaging in some privileged occupation, evidenced by the fact that such funds collected under Section 136.030, RSMo using the police power to simultaneously regulate such privileged, occupational driving activities while collecting said tax under threat of criminal punishment, are deposited in the State Highways and Transportation Fund pursuant to Section 226.200, RSMo. and Article 4, Section 30(b), Missouri Constitution.
Section 226.200, RSMo, subsection 1 provides that “…highway users as an incident to their use or right to use the highways…” and “…upon, with respect to, or on the privilege of—use thereof…” in keeping with the same provisions in Article 4, Section 30(b), Missouri Constitution, distinguishes between those using the highways as an occupational privilege and those using the highways as a matter of right, yet the tax is being arbitrarily imposed, collected, and enforced under threat of criminal punishment against any and all highway users by the police power for want of sufficient class distinctions being made manifest in Chapter 302, RSMo, and in particular, Section 302.020, RSMo, along with the failure and refusal of the Director of the MODOR to exercise his/her duty to promulgate essential implementing, promulgating rules/regulations in the Code of State Regulations, 12 CSR to govern and guide the taxing power and the police power in the regulation, enforcement, and collection of the tax.
Thus, the inherently oppressive, vague and ambiguous construction of Section 302.020, RSMo using statutory language terms “any person, the person,” and “vehicle” has permitted and encouraged subjective, arbitrary, predatory, selective and discriminatory law enforcement and criminal punishment against me through impermissible extension of legislative power as is proven by the actions taken against me by both Missouri and Texas authorities.
The doctrine of ejusdem generis must be applied in the administration and enforcement of Chapter 302, RSMo since the “…general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of [persons or] things, the general words [“any person, the person & vehicle”] will be construed as applying only to [“persons” or] things [“vehicles’] of the same general class as those enumerated,” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. P. 517), excluding all other classes pursuant to the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alteris (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. P. 521) and doctrine of enumeratio unius est exclusio alterius (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. P. 479).
In light of the fact that the license at issue is the receipt showing the payment of the “motor vehicle driver’s license [excise] tax,” being collected under authority of Section 136.030, RSMo using the police power through Chapter 302, RSMo, these sections of law are pari materia with each other, and therefore must be construed with reference to each other assuring proper construction, legislative intent and purpose, and correct application of the law.
In examining the driver’s license regulatory revenue scheme of taxation from its inception to this time, there cannot be found any constitutionally valid, explicit expression of legislative will that such act as driving an automobile without renewing a valid expired driver’s license under Chapter 302, RSMo, in and of itself, shall be treated or regarded as an actual criminal act, or genuine crime, absent the requisite criminal element, such as hit-and-run, vehicular homicide, or habitually impaired drivers who actually commit such criminal acts in the use of a vehicle on the public highways, the present Missouri legislative malfeasance and general practice and custom of those who moved against me to the contrary notwithstanding.
There is, and always has been a vast and well-defined difference between a penal statute and a criminal statute. In Atcheson v. Everett, 1 Cowp., 382, Lord Mansfield said: “There is no distinction better known than the distinction between civil and criminal law, or between criminal prosecutions and civil actions.”
Mr. Justice Blackstone, and all modern and ancient writers on the subject distinguished between them. Penal [civil] actions were never yet put under the head of criminal law or crimes. See State ex.rel. McNamee v. Stobie, 92 S.W. 191, beginning at p. 212 to 214, controlling Missouri case law which further provides:
“If an act, which is not indictable at common law, is prohibited by statute, and a particular method of proceeding is given by the statute, that method must be pursued, and an indictment will not lie unless expressly provided for by the act; although, if the act is merely prohibited, and no method of proceeding is pointed out, an indictment will lie.”
Going on in Stobie on page 213: “…but the addition of the remedy by indictment or information did not make the offense a criminal one, nor did it change the original character of the offense. The offense is not one which is prohibited [only regulated]. The statute only inflicts a forfeiture for the doing of the act of trespass. Penalties and forfeitures have ever been recoverable by civil actions or by indictment or information, but the form of the remedy does not change the character of the offense [even if it is labeled a felony or misdemeanor], nor does it make that criminal which before the change of the remedy was simply a civil wrong [and that civil wrong involving licensing only if liability is proven];” and,
Going on in Stobie at page 214, Chitty, in his work on Criminal Law, page 163, says: “Where a statute prohibits an act to be done under a certain penalty, though no mention is made of indictment, the party offending may be indicted and fined in the amount of the penalty; but, where it is merely provided that if any person do a certain act he shall forfeit a sum to be recovered by action of debt, etc., no indictment can be supported. And where a statute creates and points out a particular mode of punishment, as by information, or conviction before a magistrate, this proceeding cannot be maintained; but the specific mode pointed out in the act must be observed.;” and,
Going on in Stobie, at page 214, “Thus it appears that the statute creates only a civil right in favor of the party injured [in this case with me, there is no injured party], and that the proceedings for the recovery of the penalty, and double damages allowed by the act, must be initiated by the party injured, and by no one else, not even the state. And, further, that, whether the action be a civil action or an indictment or information, the sum recovered is a penalty, forfeiture, or damage, and that party has the option, under the statute, to determine the character of the action that shall be instituted. In any case, the action is civil and not criminal, and the right of action and the proceedings asserting the right arise solely from the act in question.”
60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, Section 37, page 206 reveals further that the Missouri judgment against me cannot be sustained as a matter of law, to wit:
“…Such an action [for alleged violation of vehicular traffic regulation] or proceeding, however, even though civil, is penal in its nature, so the burden is on the state…to prove the defendant’s violation of the regulation…. No presumption arises in such action from the mere fact that the defendant has taken out a license that he or she has engaged in the business covered by the license, and he or she may offer evidence to show that he or she was not engaged in such business. A judgment entered in such a civil action or proceeding, which in form and effect is one which can properly be entered only in a criminal prosecution for a violation of the motor vehicle statute, is erroneous, and the proceeding cannot be treated as a criminal prosecution so as to sustain the judgment, although the evidence is sufficient to show a violation of the statute.”
In conclusion, the foregoing is irrefutable proof that not only was my criminal conviction and imprisonment unlawful, but that any and all such convictions are unlawful and that the Missouri State government and certain humans we Missourians allow to run it are knowingly and willfully engaged in criminal racketeering and criminal syndicalism (organized terrorism) on a grand scale against the citizenry and need to be removed from office, charged, arrested, and punished under the RICO statutes.
When you look up the origin of the term “felon” in Black’s Law Dictionary, you will find it stems from feudalism in old English law. A feudal serf or vassal was granted certain privileges by his lord or master. The serf could enjoy the privileges so long as he was obedient to the lord or master. If he did something that displeased his lord or master, he would be brought into a star chamber proceeding, the serf would lose his privileges and would be from then on deemed a felon denied such privileges. Now when you examine Missouri law, you will find this:
“1.010. The common law of England and all statutes and acts of parliament made prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, which are not local to that kingdom and not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, or the statute laws in force for the time being, are the rule of action and decision in this state, any custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, but no act of the general assembly or law of this state shall be held to be invalid, or limited in its scope or effect by the courts of this state, for the reason that it is in derogation of, or in conflict with, the common law, or with such statutes or acts of parliament; but all acts of the general assembly, or laws, shall be liberally construed, so as to effectuate the true intent and meaning thereof. (RSMo 1939 § 645, A.L. 1957 p. 587) Prior revisions: 1929 § 645; 1919 § 7048; 1909 § 8047”
Thus, it seems to me that certain political usurpers, liars, traitors and thieves running Missouri government have transformed Missouri government into a socialist police state of fascist feudalism ruled by absolute despotism, in the manner of a protection racket of legalized plunder & extortion a.k.a. criminal syndicalism (defined as “organized terrorism” in Black’s Law Dictionary) as is evidenced by what was done to me (and others) under color of law, under color of office, using color of process, all at enormous public expense, thereby enslaving unwitting Missourians who are forced to fund such persecutions.
David George Baugh
80 Liberty Road
Steelville, Missouri 65565